Local Blogs

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add... (More)

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in addition to writing editorials for more than 15 years. I have served as a director of many non-profits in the Valley and the broader Bay Area and currently serve as chair of Teen Esteem and on the advisory board of Shepherd?s Gate. I also served as founding chair of Heart for Africa and have travelled to Africa seven times to serve on mission trips. My wife, Betty Gail, has taught at Amador Valley High (from where we both graduated) since 1981. She and I both graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, as did both of my parents and my three siblings. Given that Cal tradition, our daughter went south to the University of Southern California and graduated with a degree in international relations. Since graduation, she has taken three mission trips and will be serving in the Philippines for nine months starting in September. (Hide)

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads

Uploaded: Apr 15, 2014

The anti-oil folks in Richmond and Berkeley are preparing to battle against trains carrying fracked oil to refineries in California. Richmond and Contra Costa County, in particular, has a cluster of oil refineries.
These same folks share the philosophy of people who have railed against the Keystone pipeline that would connect Canadian heavy oil fields with American refineries on the Gulf Coast.
Given the choice between rail cars and pipelinesit's easypipes which typically are buried.
That said, rail cars routinely carry many hazardous materials safely across this country. Rail is safer than putting these in 18-wheel tractor trailers and even trucks operate quite safely given the miles traveled. Judge by how few news stories you hear about accidents. A spill of any hazardous material generates substantial news coverage and we just do not hear about that many, particularly given the volume of materials being moved.
The irony in all of this is the United States, thanks to the improvements in the decades-old fracking technology with horizontal drilling, is poised to be energy independent and a net exporter of fossil fuel products. That's particularly true when natural gas is factored in.
The anti-oil folks, who share the philosophy of the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency that are shutting down the U.S. coal mining, despise using any carbon-based fuels. Costs do not seem to matter nor does technology that has made gasoline-burning vehicles much cleaner than they were 20 years ago to say nothing about cleaner burning natural gas.
From a geopolitical standpoint, Comrade Putin wields way too much economic power over Western European because of the exports of natural gas and oil. Germany and the European Union embraced alternative power generation within the last decade and did so by providing huge subsidies to firms providing the alternatives. Within the last month, EU officials have indicated they will back down on the subsidies that have driven up electricity costs because the high costs are making their manufacturing operations non-competitive.
That's a path that California is running down thanks to Governor Brown's mandate of one-third of electrical power be generated by renewable sources. Solar panels on roofs make good sense as do windmills in certain places. Windmills, of course, must be complemented by other sources to ensure steady power supplies.
If the United States cranks up production and exports to drive a competitive world-wide market, that will put economic pressure on Putin and the Russian economy, which based almost entirely on export of carbon-based natural resources.
So, let's consider carefully whether knee-jerk reactions to safe transportation of natural resources (albeit carbon-based) should determine public policy both locally and nationally.

Posted by Arlene Brooks,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Apr 15, 2014 at 11:21 am

"Knee-jerk reactions," Tim? Such as? By whom? Any attempt by this chucklehead to understand why people are protesting? No, just your typical Tim Hunt rant by the chubby legged little school boy with striped tee shirt and big suspenders to hold up his too-short shorts. Does he hope the 'adults' will be pleased by his pouty-mouthed position? I know his English teacher won't be at all pleased, feeling perhaps the need to re-teach the suspendered little boy how to use the rules of grammar to construct coherent sentences. (See his first sentence; see his second to the last sentence. I'll not comment on the other ungrammatical slop except to say: "Congrats, Tim, on the great job of spacing and paragraphing you've offered us. It shows that you really care about what you write.") You do the P-town born-and-raised crowd real proud. Yokelism forever!

Posted by Ms. bunny,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 16, 2014 at 7:57 am

I have no problem with the rails hauling anything per se, but I'm so against fracking and believe we are further eroding the earth and increasing the threat of geological if not catastrophic disasters (i.e., earthquakes in particular) The idea that it's "all or nothing" with no prudence considered is mind blowing. Caring for the environment Tim, is the responsibility of humankind. It shouldn't be an "anything goes" proposition, even in light of crazy Putin's control. Surely you must realize this, right? We must continue the quest for alternative resources, but not ones that increase the risk of real harm to the general populace.

Talk about knee-jerk reactions. Pretty obvious to me the knee-jerk reaction was made by the \\\'folks\\\' in Richmond and Berkeley. Of course if you are up on the news you would have known that both of those city councils made it clear that they would fight any rail cars running through their cities. And as usual they pass meaningless resolutions proclaiming their stand.

Posted by San Ramon Observer,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:43 pmSan Ramon Observer is a registered user.

Ben,

The objection isn't to the rail cars it is to the fracking. As Ms. Bunny says, this is a very destructive way to continue our dependence on oil. Fracking not only continues that, but can potentially pollute drinking water. Potable water is truly a scarce commodity and one, unlike oil, that is necessary for life.

The oil cartels keep squashing any alternative forms of energy, like solar and wind power. They want to deny what we know, or should realize is happening, which is climate change. That's the point of the protests against the oil trains.

Once again this is a futile obstruction that mostly attracts ridicule from the likes of you and Tim Hunt. Opponents of fracking must come up with more profitable ways to promote their alternatives or those whose principle concern is money won't change their views.

Posted by Michael Austin,
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Apr 16, 2014 at 4:44 pm

Before I write another word I wish to disclose that I own mineral rights on lands in the Dakotas.
I don't care how the crude from the Dakotas arrives here to be processed at local refineries. Or at any refinery on earth.
I believe the fracking necessary to extract the crude is safe and inconsequential.
After all, the U.S. Government detonated atomic bombs below the earths surface for twenty-years and the earth never burped back.
North Korea, China, France, Britton, India, the list is endless with the atomic detonation deep down into the earth.
America detonated above Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot of people were killed and the destruction was massive. That society continues to exist today.
There are a number of varying extreme liberal groups that have fabricated all sorts of worst case scenarios because of fracking and they have all been proven to be just fabrication.
There is not any one person, group or organization on this earth that can prove that fracking is harmful.
Ok, I said my piece, bring it on.

The oil cartels keep squashing alternative forms of energy? What? Says who, the anti-oil movement? The climate change movement? Do you not know that all of the major oil companies invest in research and development of alternative energies and produce alternative energies already?

Ridicule? Against whom? You and your likes are the ones who ridicule anyone who doesn\'t stand with you in your beliefs. Plus the hypocrisy of it all. You alone state, "opponents of fracking must come up with more profitable ways to promote their alternatives or those whose principle concern is money won\'t change their views." So it\'s okay to make money on alternative energy, but not if you\'re in the oil industry?
Of course I know you meant that they need to come up with more useful or beneficial ways to promote their alternatives. But, so what? Does a company not have the right to make money? And is not the goal of any alternative energy company to make money? Or is it only Mr. Gore and the rest of the hypocritical left who deserve to make money off of lies, half truths and fear mongering?

Posted by Arlene Brooks,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Apr 16, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Michael Austin, does your investment make you blind to facts, or are you just too simple to recognize facts when you see them?

Your points: You don't care about the consequences of mining and moving extracted materials through communities. We all thank you for your concern.

You say you believe fracking is "safe and inconsequential." You apparently haven't looked at numerous cases that involve pollution of groundwater caused by fracking. Try googling 'fracking and water pollution'. You may have to develop rationales to become even more deluded than you have been up to this point.

Your comments about Nagasaki and Hiroshima are astonishingly ignorant and repulsive to boot. Have you no idea what continued high radiation levels did to both cities? Have you not read of the tens/hundreds of thousands of birth defects and other health disorders that remain in these two cities even today?

Your comment about there exists no proof of harmful effects of fracking is false, and blatantly so. My strong hunch is that you know this. But even giving your ignorance the benefit of the doubt, I'm pretty confident that even if you were confronted with irrefutable evidence, you'd still deny it. Get your head out of your bank statements and join the human race.

Where is the outrage for all of the other toxic substances being shipped by rail? Lets take the all electric vehicle batteries for instance; there is no question that electric car batteries use large quantities of mined metals, rare earth elements, and toxic materials, and excavating and transporting these resources may adversely affect the environment.

Posted by Ms Bunny,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 17, 2014 at 7:59 am

It is clear that Mr. Austin feels that fracking is the ONLY method to extract oil from the earth and is justified because afterall, we dropped "bombs on Hiroshima" and the city APPEARS to be "ok" (do you know this for fact?) Secondly, he admits that he "doesn't care" ??? Wow. What a very real lack of concern for the environment if not society at large, if not illogical thinking on the matter. The depth fracking penetrates affects every conceivable natural resource from water, underground springs and earth stability and leaves in it's wake further pollution and clear disruption. There is much being written about this by geologists who are now stating after the fact, they believe it is currently creating some of the earth movement hazards (i.e., landslides, erosion, etc.) not the least of these being earthquakes across the US regions. I believe Mr. Austin's thinking to be very narrow, very self-centered and tunnel-visioned on the subject.

Posted by Roz Rogoff,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 17, 2014 at 6:51 pm

"Do you not know that all of the major oil companies invest in research and development of alternative energies and produce alternative energies already?"

Yes, Ben, I do know that. Chevron is now calling itself an Energy Company. Do you know why? Because the planet is running out of oil. It's more difficult and expensive to get, like deep water drilling and fracking, and will eventually be used up by the next Century. So to keep their "energy companies" making money they have to invest in alternative forms of energy.

I don't care. I'll be dead by then, even with all the bionics keeping old people living into their 100's. I'm not looking forward to life in the 22nd Century.

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Apr 17, 2014 at 9:40 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Roz, before declaring that the "planet is running out of oil", please please! do a google search "Is the planet running out of oil" and report back what you find. Here's a hint: the science isn't exactly settled.

Your statement is eerily reminiscent of a politician who proclaimed the oceans would begin swamping cities starting in 2013 because of global warming.

Posted by Arlene Brooks,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Apr 17, 2014 at 10:01 pm

Okay, so now we know Michael Austin is Dan, the guy with the bogus health insurance plan who now has to pay more (but probably not) for a real policy.

You might want to look up how the Marshall Islands are having all drinking water delivered from other nations, as their own groundwater has become thoroughly contaminated by salt water, caused by rising sea levels. But continue on with what you do best, Dan. Thumb in mouth, nose between squeezed fingers, and blow as hard as you can.

Posted by Ms. bunny,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:55 am

Take a chill pill Dan...lol. Your knickers are wound up so tight against your neck you can't spew anything of substance out of your mouth without utter little-man syndrome digs. You come off like one major smart-as*. Be a man guy, learn to "agree to disagree". That's what adults do (not that you get that)

Posted by Arlene Brooks,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Apr 18, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Anything of substance? Like: two hurricanes of the century hitting the same location? Well, says Dan after thoroughly researching Wikipedia, "they're on the East Coast." And the Marshall Islands not having any uncontaminated ground water: "Hey, geniuses, Wikipedia says the Marshall Islands are in the Pacific! I did the research!"

Dan is obviously spoofing us; no one who walks on two legs could actually be this stupid.

Posted by San Ramon Observer,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 18, 2014 at 8:16 pmSan Ramon Observer is a registered user.

Dan,

I guessed you would focus on the wrong element in my link. It wasn't about the hurricane. It was about the flooding.

The subway in Manhattan was flooded -- never happened before. Staten Island was flooded. Staten Island, for those not from New York City, is one of the five Boroughs.

New York City was underwater during Sandy, and it will happen again probably this year. Probably from another hurricane, but the cost of cleanup will continue to rise. Don't you ever wonder who pays for the cost of cleaning up these messes?

It's not "Liberal" to worry about the expense of climate change. I doubt there's much humans can do to stop these changes now, but we should at least acknowledge that they are happening and prepare for them.

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:24 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Am I being punk'd?!

One at a time, ladies.

Ms Bunny,

Yes honey, I am a M a n and I really don't care what you think about me. If that is having an "ego" then fine. I have an ego. Now are you going to debate or are you going to make that sandwich...? :)

Arlene (Ms. Bunny?)

Your incoherence is getting the best of you. Try again sweetie.

SRO (I'm guessing Roz?)

Did you even think to look up the effects of the massive rainfall they got in a short timespan? Look what happens around here when we get a whole 1/2 inch of rain. They got, what, six to twelve inches!

Also New York sits between the Hudson River and Atlantic Ocean and with each Hurricane comes...you got it...a storm tide!

None of the flooding had to do with global warming.

And btw, I was making an analogy linking anti-fracking sentiments to global warming fanatics. They're so predictable.

New thing you know, we might find out that the antarctic ice is actually expanding, not melting as predicted less than a decade ago: Web Link

Oops, turns out that might not be accurate as well. (click through to view the data)

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:54 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Roz,

My apologies, I narrowly focused on the first half of your response. Please allow me to address the second half and I will be as respectful as possible.

"New York City was underwater during Sandy,..."

No, New York city was not under water. Parts of it were, but the large majority was not. Look it up.

"...and it will happen again probably this year"

I'd take that bet any day. Research governmental hurricane predictions since this whole global warming fanaticism started. It's an interesting read.

"...but the cost of cleanup will continue to rise"

Of course, it rarely goes down.

"Don't you ever wonder who pays for the cost of cleaning up these messes?"

I know who pays. We do.

"It's not "Liberal" to worry about the expense of climate change"

I don't remember bringing up liberals, so let me focus on climate change. Climate has been changing for as long as the earth has been in existence. We will NEVER control it. So we will just pay for the damage that Mother Nature choses to make. How's that for common sense?

"I doubt there's much humans can do to stop these changes now, but we should at least acknowledge that they are happening and prepare for them."

I really had to control my natural tendency for sarcasm when I read this. Since WHEN, in the history of man, have we been able to control (stop?) climate? I'm just old enough Roz to remember when "global cooling" was the rage. Then as recent as the last decade, it changed to global warming. And now, most disingenuously, the hype is "climate change".

The second they can make a climate model backwards compatible, meaning that the data accurately reflects past climate activity while also predicting the future, I will start to listen to the proclamations regarding "climate change". Think about that for one moment.

Sincerely,

Dan

"It's not "Liberal" to worry about the expense of climate change"
I don't remember bringing up liberals, so let me focus on climate change. Climate has been changing for as long as the earth has been in existence. We will NEVER control it. So we will just pay for the damage that Mother Nature choses to make. How's that for common sense?

Posted by Ms. bunny,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 19, 2014 at 8:17 am

Yeah. You should apologize alright Dan. For being the egocentric blowhard you are. You took the debate in conversation here to a nasty level and you CONTINUE to. You express yourself like a know-it-all 20-something kid and diss anyone and everyone's opinion but your own. Grow up Danny boy and for once in your life? BE A MAN and stop with the pounding of your own chest.

No one's interested at this point in time with anything more you have to spew. Once again? Get over yourself.

Posted by Roz Rogoff,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 20, 2014 at 1:06 am

Dan,

You said, "Climate has been changing for as long as the earth has been in existence. We will NEVER control it. So we will just pay for the damage that Mother Nature choses to make. How's that for common sense?"

Yes climate has changed over thousands of years. Climate is global and cyclical. Weather isn't the same as Climate. Weather is what happens day by day. Climate is the overall weather patterns occurring over centuries or millennia. It isn't a matter of controlling climate, but preparing for what affects the climate has on changes in the weather.

According to your "common sense" statements above, you wouldn't use an umbrella or raincoat if it is raining, because you can't stop the rain. When your clothes get wet, you would just buy new clothes. Yeah that's common sense alright!

"Did you even think to look up the effects of the massive rainfall they got in a short timespan? Look what happens around here when we get a whole 1/2 inch of rain. They got, what, six to twelve inches!"

Here's a blog I wrote in 2011, before Hurricane Sandy and the California drought. I reposted a few months ago. It was written for you.

Posted by Peter Kluget,
a resident of Danville,
on Apr 21, 2014 at 10:23 am

There's really no point in trying to engage on a reasonable level with people who deny that humans pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will have a predictable consequence. They don't understand the science behind that conclusion, couldn't reproduce the analysis or assess the data in any meaningful way like the scientists who have studied the matter have done, but they are determined to believe that it's wrong despite their ignorance.

In order to maintain their belief system, they have to believe that hundreds of scientists have falsely reported their data and the results of their experiments, and that the absence of any significant scientific explanation for the data which doesn't involve that CO2 doesn't mean anything. So they cling to random factoids which don't actually prove the point they're trying to make and nonsensical - even mystical - justifications for their position. Such as:

"Climate has been changing for as long as the earth has been in existence."

So far, so good. This is true, and it's actually a necessary component of AGW science that the climate has changed before. That means that the internal climate regulating mechanisms which tend to keep the climate more or less the same decade after decade (negative feedbacks) are not strong enough to prevent it, although there is no evidence of significant climate change over a short time period before - which is also significant.

But then you get to the quasi-religious:
"We will NEVER control it."

Really? And does that mean that we will never affect it - say, by pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air, which has a scientifically demonstrated consequence of increasing the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere? Because that doesn't follow.

"So we will just pay for the damage that Mother Nature choses to make. How's that for common sense?"

Not so much. That's kind of like saying: "We can never prevent accidents, so we'll just get good at picking up the wreckage and treating the survivors" instead of "Let's install traffic lights and enforce speed limits."

Common sense would be "How about we stop doing the things that make the climate change in ways that will make the world a worse place in the future. Or at least do less of it instead of more?"

But those who deny the predictable consequences of being lazy and irresponsible aren't really interested in common sense. They're interested in an excuse to take no responsibility for their actions.

One question, if we as entities (reactants) can not affect nor have ever effected global climates (products), then does that not clearly indicate that we should cease to resist population increase and subsequent resource utilization?

Seems that if the logic for which you have expressed is 'true' that we can not positively or negatively impact the system (climate) by our actions, then we should use the system like there is no tomorrow to worry about. Humvees and Cristal for all?

Posted by Peter Kluget,
a resident of Danville,
on Apr 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Of course, Dan. Why consider the peer reviewed conclusion of actual scientists working with the primary source data when you can rely on the snide disinformation of a college dropout whose primary "climate science" credential is that once worked as a TV weatherman?

Posted by john,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Apr 21, 2014 at 7:25 pm

"Dan",

You keep saying "control the climate", but the question isn't whether or not man's activities "control" the climate but whether or not they may affect the climate. The way to answer that question scientifically is to do some experiments, run some calculations, create some models, and test the model's predictions. Science is really never a question of common sense. Common sense can frequently lead you to the wrong conclusions in science. Think of relativity or quantum mechanics.

It sounds to me like you might be saying climate science, and man's role in affecting the earth's climate aren't really a subjects worthy of rigorous scientific study. Is that what you are saying?

Posted by john,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Apr 21, 2014 at 7:29 pm

"Potable water is truly a scarce commodity and one, unlike oil, that is necessary for life. "

The technology currently exists to desalinate ocean water to meet any current or potential needs, and the energy could be readily generated with nuclear energy. And the waste from that can be recycled into more nuclear fuel.

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Apr 21, 2014 at 9:26 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Conservator,

"...then does that not clearly indicate that we should cease to resist population increase and subsequent resource utilization?"

I don't know is the quickest answer I could come with at the moment. But I'd wager a bet that most of the "peer reviewed" scientists don't know either. Thats why their models are not backwards compatible.

And by the way C, how does one "resist population increase"?

But let's take your example of correlation between population and resource utilization as a cause for the current "climate change". How would you explain climate change ( being warmer overall) any time before the industrial revolution?

Posted by john,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Apr 21, 2014 at 10:42 pm

"...have been unable to build a futuristic model that accurately reflects the past. Get it? "

No, I don't quite get it. Are you saying it needs more study, more funding, because the results are so far inconclusive?

What confuses me is sentences like these:

" Climate has been changing for as long as the earth has been in existence. We will NEVER control it."

It sounds like your mind is made up. I'm still not sure what you mean by "control". Do you mean that "we" can't affect it one way or another? Are you saying there are people who want to prevent the climate from changing in the future?

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Apr 22, 2014 at 8:57 amFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

John,

I'm sorry you don't get it.

"It sounds like your mind is made up."

No John, it sounds like YOUR mind is made up. I'm for testing the data that has been produced.

Most of the models that have been funded show SOMETHING, but funny thing about models is that, while they show increase localized temps, they fail to show PAST temperatures accurately. How can that be?

Bottom-line: current models are flawed.

So, yes, there should be some funding ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. Let the best science win.

Posted by john,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Apr 22, 2014 at 9:04 am

"No John, it sounds like YOUR mind is made up."

Please show me an example, any example, any sentence I typed that would lead you to believe that.

"So, yes, there should be some funding ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE"

In what way would that differ from what is going on now?

"current models are flawed."

All models are flawed. That's why they're called models. They are imperfect approximations. That's why we have things like error bars and confidence levels. Again, I don't see the point you are making.

You never answered what you meant by "control" the climate. Do you mean "affect"?

Posted by Conservator,
a resident of Danville,
on Apr 22, 2014 at 10:26 am

Dear 'D' - I'm not quite hip any longer so perhaps you would not mind just Dan for nomenclature?,

Thanks for your response. One well recognized example of active intervention to minimizing population increase over the last 4+ decades was China's one-child policy. As has been widely reported, the ruling party has made efforts to relax what was once a very stringent degree of control on family size. In a more passive manner, population growth in terms of family size has similarly been recognized on a broad basis to be decreasing within Western Europe, Canada/US, Australia and, particularly in Japan as a result of cultural and societal expectations. All the while, emergent populations in Brazil, India and China are significantly growing (throw in Russia and you have a BRIC segment for another day's discussion). These are all well recognized assessments.

My question to you, which you did not truly answer as a learnt individual on this topic, is that IF we can not affect or have never been able to prove that we effected our climate, when why should we not just throw caution and restraint to the wind when it comes to consumption and utilization?

Most experienced engineers and technologists that I've known and worked with through the years will always point to some limiting factor such as raw material or reactants for a reaction (amount of fuel a car can carry, as a poor example) as to why we just don't design or create things that are just so independent (i.e. fantastic) of the system around them that they would run forever (and be cheap!). I believe they refer to these things as the study of thermodynamics. Not sure, but I think to your earlier points on the validity of most scientific models, that this field of study is filled with such 'laws' derived from experimental observation. Perhaps, it's just alchemy or witchery, as well.

So in terms of global population (Web Link), I think we could all agree that it's going up in total. There are some technologists (I understand that the word scientist and this topic is generally verboten) that point to limiting factors as to what should and absolutely does control the spread and affect of humans in our world (Web Link). The attached reference is from a very respected, peer-reviewed Nature family journal. For the sake of civil discussion, let's acknowledge that some journals do follow and maintain a rigorous logical process for publication. This is one of them. Yes, it does not mean that the reader has to accept the conclusions, just that the process followed to provide that conclusion is not expected to have been 'shoddy'.

Thus, if we come back to my earlier question, if we can't affect climate, period, then why not get back to the good old days where no one really cared if you burned your garbage out back or the smoke stacks from the factory down the corner ran day and night? If you're old enough to remember the perma-grey skies of the greater LA metropolitan area, then anecdotally you know what I'm describing.

Why? Could it not possibly be that more people on this finite globe could possibly affect the environment and thereby the climate? Which, if possible, could imply that we as humans can, albeit controversially, do affect the climate.

I, amongst many of the readers here, look forward to your learnt response.

Posted by Peter Kluget,
a resident of Danville,
on Apr 22, 2014 at 11:42 am

"When you're ready to read the opposing data, then we can debate."

Actually, we're not debating the data. Neither you nor I have the expertise to give the data a meaningful evaluation. The difference between us is that I understand that. You appear to believe that a plausible sounding bit of spin sprinkled with comments about cherry-pick factoids constitutes "proof" that scientists have ignored/conspired to hide/never heard of the key proof that AGW theory is "wrong" which must surely exist.

You've lapped up the soundbites, but you really, really do not understand the science. Like I said from the start, you couldn't reproduce the analyses. You haven't actually reviewed the primary source data. You don't really know what the significance of "the data" you cling to really is - or is not. You rely on "pop science" pitches and convince yourself that that's all you need to know to conclude that all of the real scientists are wrong.

You have simply relied on what your leaders have told you. You believe what corresponds to that, and ignore whatever doesn't. You insist (foolishly) that study of "your side" of the issue hasn't been funded, in the clearly evident belief that science has "sides" and that studying an issue is performed by starting with the answer and then looking for data which backs it up. It's true, that's how folks like your Mr. Watt do it, but it's not how actual scientists operate. In fact, science is a process of trying to find data that will disprove a theory. The failure to find that data tends to support the theory; that's why scientists try to find anything that doesn't fit. Scientists have been looking at the data to see what doesn't fit since the start of climate studies in the 20th century. That's what led to a few scientists positing a "global cooling" theory, and others to seek out data which showed that that theory was wrong. (Deniers take exactly the wrong lesson from that experience.)

Your opinion is indistinguishable from that of the flat earthers. You start with your conclusion, and accept even fatuous arguments which correspond to it and insist that all the scientists who tell you otherwise are wrong/lying/conspiring/ignorant fools.